Two comments:
I believe that the spending of public money for the construction of Municipal stadiums is a reasonable use of tax dollars, when done for the ultimate benefit of the citizen's served by the controlling governing body.
If we, the taxpayer's, are going to pay for such a stadium then we should have ultimate control over design, location, full use, when not used for contracted tenants and we should derive a profit from the investment. Such profit should also include increased taxes paid by those associated with the stadium or benefiting from it (Hotel tax, employee tax, parking revenue, etc. etc.
However, such decisions should be fully discussed with the primary tenant (in this case the Nationals).
I am trying to understand your position. Do you believe just city dollars pay for a "municipal" stadium, or the suburbs as well?
What if the suburbs are in different states (e.g., New Jersey communities near Philadelphia and New York City and MD and VA suburbs near DC) and thus are likely to have neither fiscal nor operational control over the stadium? Should they still have to support it with tax dollars (as opposed to / in addition to ticket sales)?
What if the stadium is not in the city but instead in is a suburb, as I think still occurs in the Bloomington stadium outside Minneapolis? Who do you think should pay for and control and operate the stadium then?